Author Topic: Frs. Hewko and Pfeiffer see a man return from the dead for sacraments. (Read 5417 times)

Ekim · « **on:** January 30, 2014, 04:01:38 PM »

Proof?

I sure hope this can be docuмented....

http://ourladyofmountcarmelusa.com/

Centroamerica · « **Reply #1 on:** January 30, 2014, 04:08:30 PM »

Quote from: Ekim

Proof?

I sure hope this can be docuмented....

http://ourladyofmountcarmelusa.com/

Please update us if there is new information.

Matthew · « **Reply #2 on:** January 30, 2014, 04:14:59 PM »

Uh...

Consider the source.

Remember other gems, such as "There's nothing left of the Pfeiffer ranch but the mailbox"?

Some people have to be sensational about everything, distorting the basic facts for the sake of "buzz" or piquing curiosity.

Some people also yearn for the extraordinary. The Catholic Church is actually quite skeptical by default about any new reports of miracles, apparitions, visions, etc.

The unbelievers think we're all a bunch of credulous fools. On the contrary, the Church has always been the biggest skeptic of extraordinary manifestations. So anything approved by the Church -- you can take it to the bank!

Remember how the Church officials treated the Children of Fatima? They weren't "bad guys" either -- they were doing their job!

Because, long story short, we don't NEED any (additional) miracles or visions to believe. The Faith is believable on God's infallible word alone.

As Our Lord said,
"If they won't believe Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe if a man rises from the dead."

Another thing -- in the seminary we were taught there are 2 different things that need to be kept in balance: hagiography, and doctrine.

Over-emphasis on either one will cause a distorted perception of the Catholic Faith.

Over-emphasis on reading the Catechism will result in forgetting that God is in control, and that He steps in personally sometimes. One would forget that sometimes extraordinary things happen.

Over-emphasis on reading Lives of the Saints would make us think that extraordinary things are ordinary, and we'd forget the normal way things work.

So we're supposed to be up-to-speed on both: basic Catholic doctrine (the Catechism, etc.) and also Lives of the Saints.

Ekim · « **Reply #3 on:** January 30, 2014, 06:32:20 PM »

The problem is credibility. Both Fathers have referred to this website as a trusted source of information regarding their activities. They have given it their "Imprimatur." When such a website reports such things it makes these good priests look foolish if such claims can not be proved.

Satan wants nothing more than go discredit these priests and make them look foolish. This is a good way to do it.

Frances · « **Reply #4 on:** January 30, 2014, 06:59:22 PM »

Quote from: Ekim

The problem is credibility.
Satan wants nothing more than go discredit these priests and make them look foolish. This is a good way to do it.

Unfortunately, it is often too late by the time the priests actually see the site. Remermber the advertisement for Bp. W.'s 25th Anniversary? It featured mainly pictures of Fr. Pfeiffer! The mailbox comment was not true, but it had nothing to do with the Faith. Falsely attributing holiness says more about the poster of such nonsense than it does of the alleged miracle-working priests. What is bad is not that the priests look foolish, but that Our Lord is diminished in the eyes of the simple.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #5 on:** January 30, 2014, 07:29:17 PM »

.

While I agree, it's a good idea not to be too eager to hop on the bandwagon (if there is one, that is), at the same time, too much incredulity is overboard, too.

It reminds me of long ago, when professors used to seem devoted to hunt down the students who were thinking that "all these miracles of St. John Bosco make him seem like some kind of superman fiction character."

(They didn't dare use that terminlology, though, pun intended.)

They were so worried that their charges were sulking and harboring doubts.

Maybe they were right. But it didn't apply to me. Curiously, the thought had never crossed my mind until they started asking the question. I remember thinking, "Who would think that St. John Bosco's miracles make him look somehow more than human?" -- I mean, after all, when we're reading about Our Lord's miracles in Scripture we don't think that He must have been some kind of space alien, do we?

So, I would caution you:

Are you wont to say that Fr. Pfeiffer COULD NOT be a witness to such a thing?

Are you more at home thinking that Fr. Chazal is INCAPABLE of seeing such a prodigy?

For I wouldn't at all be surprised if it did happen. I can tall you for sure, that they're not going to find any M.D. who will dare to testify to the fact, though. All the Doctors on planet earth are FAR too worried about their rap sheet, and their credibility. It's for them a kind of sacred cow, a strange god before Him Who Is.

Are you really sure the Resistance is acceptable in the eyes of God, or are you only a Resistance member at arm's length? "Nothing too much!" You know, like the Jansenists used to say.

I know several sedes who would immediately have a judgment to level against another priest who mentions such a miracle, especially if he had been one ordained after 1969 in the New Rite. They would say it's a hoax. They would say it's impossible. They would say, God would never grant a miracle to an imposter priest whose ordination was invalid.

And when the Pope consecrates Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and Russia coverts, they're going to say, That has to be a deception of the devil, because that man wasn't the pope!

.

Ekim · « **Reply #6 on:** January 30, 2014, 08:29:05 PM »

I would find it believable if the good Padre, with their own lips said they were there when the man was pronounced dead and with their own eye's saw the man wake for the sacraments. However, to hear such things from a third party? Not so much.

JuanDiego · « **Reply #7 on:** January 31, 2014, 08:33:13 AM »

Are we sure Pa*** owns Our Lady of Mount Carmel website? I talked to someone "in the know" in Boston and they said he does not, that there is another person in the SSPX-MC who owns the site.

hugeman · « **Reply #8 on:** January 31, 2014, 11:02:22 PM »

I don't think anybody is advocating that the Church declare a miracle has occurred. But I think we can take the OP's word , based on what the person saw, being there at all the relevant times.

Why is it so difficult to believe that God will provide for His own? Do we not see, almost every single day, the hand of God operating in our daily lives? Listen to Father Hewko's sermon just last week in Danbury, he explained the serious, serious issues surrounding this whole industry known as organ donation. Father explained that medical professionals and scholars admit that body organs are harvested from people who are not yet dead-- they are alive! However, for the sake of the harvesting, and to protect the licenses and incomes of the medical practice people, they are "declared" dead. (This is why harvesting or organs, and organ donation, is such a serious issue).

This declaration of dead is based on limited output from the available scientific instruments in use, or based on personal observation of the medical person making the declaration. But we know as Catholics, that there is no death until the soul has separated from the body-- and that may well occur up to two hours or so after the so-called "declared dead" time.

We have seen many, many times where the "medical people" make a declaration of death, simply because they see no electrical activity, and they have run out of "ideas" to resuscitate effectively. But we also know that the "deceased" person still hears us and can, on occasion, make some kinds of response. This is one of the main arguments for ensuring your loved ones have a Catholic person attending their final weeks, days or hours.

So, unless Father Hewko or Father Pfeiffer had a different recollection of what happened, I'd be inclined to believe the report, and rejoice that the angels of the Lord visited that man's home.

1st Mansion Tenant · « **Reply #9 on:** January 31, 2014, 11:41:17 PM »

There have been lots of docuмented cases where people were declared dead for several minutes and revived. Look at all those who have "life-after-death"
experiences- some which are very credible. It does happen occasionally. My mom actually died for nearly 2 minutes in the hospital back in the 70's and revived, she lived another 5 years afterward. There is no reason to disbelieve this story, however it is not dogma either. But after looking of the photo of Fr Hewko and Mr Hayden prior to his death, I did notice his scapular...

Skunkwurxsspx · « **Reply #10 on:** February 01, 2014, 04:22:00 PM »

Quote from: 1st Mansion Tenant

There have been lots of docuмented cases where people were declared dead for several minutes and revived. Look at all those who have "life-after-death"
experiences- some which are very credible. It does happen occasionally. My mom actually died for nearly 2 minutes in the hospital back in the 70's and revived, she lived another 5 years afterward. There is no reason to disbelieve this story, however it is not dogma either. But after looking of the photo of Fr Hewko and Mr Hayden prior to his death, I did notice his scapular...

I've read lots of good arguments here to either believe or to hold off and be more cautious. Good points made by both sides. I have nothing further to add to that end. That said, I just have a strong intuition that this is a true account.

JPaul · « **Reply #11 on:** February 02, 2014, 10:28:30 AM »

The account is much too sparse to make any informed determination and it is not related to us by an uninterested party.
Let us wait for concrete docuмentation before any claims are made.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #12 on:** February 04, 2014, 03:27:58 AM »

Quote from: J.Paul

The account is much too sparse to make any informed determination and it is not related to us by an uninterested party.
Let us wait for concrete docuмentation before any claims are made.

While I agree the information is sparse and the source is not uninterested, too many times in cases like this there is no 'concrete docuмentation' forthcoming, and the matter will likely fade away, because it would come down to the testimony of the priests as there are likely no other witnesses to this, unless perhaps a layman was standing nearby. But we would disqualify the layman already because he is not 'disinterested'.

If there had been a journalist at hand, he'd likely be sniffing out a story that would have more broad appeal, like whether the hospital diverts funds or whether there is a policy of unjust discrimination against ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs going on, for example. His eyes would likely glaze over when someone even describes to him this 'returning to life' only to then die again, because he wouldn't see ANY STORY IN IT, because he is disinterested.

Why would any 'disinterested' party be apt to make any report known to anyone? For anyone to make such a report, he would have to be interested in making the report, at least.

So don't be surprised if this just fades away and is lost.

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #13 on:** February 04, 2014, 03:49:43 AM »

.

The ink dried before I could mention this. I actually did not notice that I was using a different word (disinterested) than the one J.Paul used (uninterested).

So just to be sure, I looked it up and found this:

Disinterested Not the Same as Uninterested

The constant misuse of disinterested for uninterested is breaking down a very useful distinction of meaning.

To be uninterested is to be lacking in any sense of engagement with the matter:
Sallie is uninterested in algebra.

To be disinterested is to lack bias:
Let the company call in a disinterested mediator to settle the dispute.

The use of disinterest as a verb should probably be avoided:
Her husband tried to disinterest her in taking the course in German.
Better: Her husband tried to discourage her from taking the course in German.

If the person you are describing is not interested in something, use uninterested.

It would seem in our case, an objective reporter would be one without bias, and therefore disinterested, however, an uninterested reporter would be one who has no desire to make a report in the first place. Therefore, this "useful distinction" the referenced article contains, distinguishes between two parts of our one case, if that isn't ironic enough.

.

JPaul · « **Reply #14 on:** February 04, 2014, 09:40:43 AM »

Statements such as this should never be publicized without qualifiers until the proper facts have been established. And lacking these criteria or if it turns out as not provable, then that source should be held as suspect in the future when reporting on such events.